July 27, 2016

No convention bump for Hillary's alienating and irrelevant campaign

During the most tone-deaf major campaign ever run, it comes as no surprise to see that Hillary's polls are flat or declining, even as her convention has taken over the mass media.

According to tracking polls from both Reuters and USC / LA Times, Trump's convention boost had begun the weekend before the event was even gaveled in. After its end, his numbers are holding still or increasing, rather than it being a fluke.

The "history-making" coronation of Clinton, on the other hand, has only seen a slowing in her rate of descent -- still falling, but not in free-fall as she was last week. But there are still two more days for her to alienate and anger normal Americans, so let's not count out another precipitous drop after her big speech.

Here are the Reuters and USC graphs (Reuters always underestimates Trump's true standing, but the trend is still clear).

How much cash do you think Team Hillary has been pouring into her convention, compared to Trump's? And yet what does she have to show for it? Still sagging polls. Turns out that having an order of magnitude "advantage" in spending money and employing staff doesn't mean jack squat if it's all pointed in the wrong direction.

I really, really hope that her big speech is a 50-minute version of her nerve-grating commercial about "How will innocent Mexican kindergarteners FEEL when they hear President Trump say that Mexican rapists and drug dealers are invading our country?" There could not be a more tone-deaf and mawkish harangue of ordinary Americans on behalf of America-corroding forces.

38 comments:

Clinton is going to double down on the identity politics since there are two honkeys on the ticket. They are keenly aware that having two white people on the ticket means that the minority vote will likely fall to pre-Obama levels if not lower since they're discouraged that they no longer have a minority to vote for. The convention is also trying really hard to attract young voters which overwhelmingly voted for Bernie. Given the protests, I don't think that is happening. Most young women don't know or care about Lena Dunham as Girls consistently gets terrible ratings on HBO.

Personally I think that their participation will fall to 2004 levels or less no matter what they do. This leaves Clinton especially vulnerable in the rust belt and New England area if the working class white vote shows up in droves.

The Trump landslide is looking more and more likely. All Trump has to do is hammer Clinton's numerous weaknesses and stick to his strengths. If he can avoid the culture war entanglements that he got into in March, we can still expect a 400+ electoral vote blowout on November 8.

In a time when the popular mood is all about the Forgotten Man dusting himself off and taking a stand against the callous Establishment, who does that video cast in the role of inspirational underdogs? -- a bunch of complacent cultural elites who are richer than God, smiling emptily in front of a syrupy colored background.

With enemies this out of touch with the real world, their defeat is now guaranteed. We're never gonna get tired of winning!

"The convention is also trying really hard to attract young voters which overwhelmingly voted for Bernie."

Going after the youth vote is retarded because like Hispanics, they don't vote.

The revised data shows that the electorate was a lot *older* in 2012 than experts had thought. Probably because they don't show up in exit polls b/c they vote by mail, vote early, etc.

Young states are overwhelmingly red because a low median age reflects a natalist outlook among the adults, and natalist adults vote Republican.

Blue states are older, and who is peeling off Obama voters there? Trump, who is targeting Boomers who remember when America was not circling the drain. Team Hillary cannot counteract that by appealing to young people since there aren't many there to attract (adults there don't have kids).

Let's see if President Butthurt can make the positive case for Crooked Hillary, or if he presents it as a feud between the outgoing President vs. the incoming President, all but assuring Americans that Trump is going to replace him in the Oval Office.

Nope -- just a drawn-out circle jerk about values, beliefs, ideas, and principles, narcissistically preening about how already-great America is thanks to his values / beliefs / etc., and how his legacy cannot be tarnished by the bullycider-in-chief.

"They have lost on policy - everything from TPP to war - and now all they have left is emotional talk."

This is a key point. The Dems are trapped in a very small box of what they can actually talk about; Hillary can't run on her record, she can't run on policy (everyone knows she's a bankster neocon warmonger); she can't appeal overtly to normal whites lest she discourage her minority pets; and she can't run on charisma or mass appeal because she doesn't have any (just the opposite). She's also tainted with tons of scandals, so she has to avoid any situations that could lead to unscripted uncomfortable questions.

So all she can do is exactly what she's doing: hide in the background and let the media and celebrities do all the campaigning for her. But all she's left them to work with is empty bromides about values, "Trump is Hitler", and "it's her turn". For people who are actually concerned about the state of the country: terrorism, loss of economic opportunity, endless foreign wars, soaring debts, etc, she just doesn't have any substantial positive vision at all. Hence the tone-deaf pandering and constant spin.

They say stupidity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Democrats have been trying to emulate the failed policies of Communists and Socialists for decades, with the same declining results. They also seem to have the corruption emulated as well. The voters it seems have finally had enough.

The new Rasmussen Poll of Clinton +1 is slightly disturbing to me because it makes me think Hillary is getting some kind of convention bounce. I realize this is a statistical tie but IIRC Trump was previously ahead in this poll.

The state surveys are fascinating to me. Considering the primaries, I am pleasantly surprised at how extremely strong Trump looks in many states West of the Mississippi. Even if they have voted Republican consistently for 50+ years I found Trump +17 in Kansas to be awe inspiring. Trump +21 in Idaho was very comforting as it's the #2 Mormon state. This makes me think Utah has to be safe for Trump no matter how cuck Mormon's are.

Hillary only +3 in Oregon was the single biggest surprise to me. You have been saying that state is in play and it looks like they truly are. Amazing considering how blue it's been the past 30 years.

If Trump is doing I better than I expected in the West I am so far dissapointed in several of the Eastern state surveys such as today's Pennsylvania showing Hillary +9 (convention bounce?) I realize Vermont is an extremely liberal state but seeing Hillary +22 is jarring. The white libs in Vermont must be extremely threatened by Trump. I wonder why Oregon and Vermont are reacting so differently to him?

The USC / LA Times has another day in, and still Hillary is sliding while Trump is rising. She might be the first in awhile to get a negative bounce.

In Oregon, Trump was up by 2 in that same poll mid-May, so staying within the margin of error over the past two months, and after Trump had unofficially won the nom.

In the Reuters tracking poll, Trump is up in the Far West over the weekend, continuing the rise I wrote about on Friday. Now it includes registered and likely voters as well. I'm guessing Oregon is the most pro-Trump, but we could also have California whittled down to single digits.

I looked at that Suffolk poll of PA, and only 48% said the country was on the wrong track, which is about 20 points below the national number. Not too representative of the current mood. Reuters has Trump rising in the Mid-Atlantic, and Hillary falling. About tied, although Reuters underestimates his advantage.

"Jesus, Tim Kaine is a walking, talking caricature of a creepy homo pedophile. Just when you thought a face couldn't make your skin crawl more than Creepy Joe Biden's..."

Things I'll say in real life to close family members or here, but not to acquaintances or on twitter (I don't want to be mean)...I cannot look directly at Tim Kaine. He literally makes my stomach turn. This is not hyperbole, I literally cannot look directly at his face without feeling sick. I'm not saying I think he's a pedo or anything, but for some reason I don't understand, he makes me sick to my stomach.I'm not even sure I've retweeted anything related to Tim Kaine; I just want him far from me and out of my twitter timeline, too.

"The new Rasmussen Poll of Clinton +1 is slightly disturbing to me because it makes me think Hillary is getting some kind of convention bounce. I realize this is a statistical tie but IIRC Trump was previously ahead in this poll."

It'll be a pleasant surprise if she does not get a bounce, but I expect her to get one. Trump's job is to mitigate as much as possible and he seems to be doing a great job. "Putin" and "Russia" were great ways to seize the cycle yesterday as it causes many pundits' brains to flat-out short circuit and go on a tear. I've heard that Putin is more popular than either Trump or Clinton, too, so win-win.

Speaking of natalism, Agnostic, I've joked about how a process of choosing colonists for Mars according to objective standards for success would give you passing candidates who resemble Republican voters - wholesome people with healthy sexuality like Charles Darwin and his fertile wife Emma; or like the Duggars in Arkansas - while the rejects would tend to resemble Democrats.

I can just imagine a comedy where the colonization project has to cave in to demands for "social justice":

"I just don't get it. For the past 20 years we've sent gays, lesbians, transgenders, feminists and pajama boys to Mars, but the colony keeps failing. What have we done wrong?"

Welp, the DNC failed to unify the party. #neverhillary is still a popular hashtag. Neither Obama or Sanders' speech moved the needle. The endless parade of millennial celebrities didn't seem to mollify the angry Berniebros who were protesting inside and outside of the DNC. So what now? I believe that if they weren't able to get the Bernie supporters in line now, they won't be able to on November 8.

I guess the question is where they go from here. I imagine they will disperse between Johnston, Stein, Trump, and just staying home. I suspect the working class Bernie supporters will go for Trump, the more hippie Bernie supporters will go for Stein, the Berniebros will go for Johnson, and everyone else will stay home. We're talking several million people here that the Democrats failed at reaching and keeping.

The Russian angle isn't going to stick as nobody I know in real life, in the cuck belt on either party, is buying it. It's the screams of a discredited media who got caught "red" handed carrying water for the DNC, something we all knew was happening but now we have the documented proof. Now Assange is promising another set of leaks and I imagine it has the DNC and Hillary's campaign frightened.

This election is now Trump's to lose. In the few weeks to the first debate, the Democrats are on the defensive, which means they will keep making mistakes, and burying Hillary's chances even deeper. Should be exciting to see unfold!

"The endless parade of millennial celebrities didn't seem to mollify the angry Berniebros who were protesting inside and outside of the DNC. So what now? I believe that if they weren't able to get the Bernie supporters in line now, they won't be able to on November 8."

The debates will be clarifying. I don't know how common "Berniebros" are, but I'm guessing if you didn't join Hillary by the end of the convention, then you're really not into identity politics at all and never will join; Trump will be running to her Left on most of the issues they care about, namely, trade.

I'm guessing that she'll defend herself by saying she now is against, but mostly hitting him for personal practices like having his ties made out of the country.

By far, not even close, the biggest issue where Trump can make up ground is with war/foreign policy. We Republicans who were involved in the primary know Trump repudiated neocons, but your average voter and Democrat does not know this.Back in the Fall I met a Bernie supporter who had automatically assigned "warmonger" to Trump and was shocked when I told her he was closer to Ron Paul than G.W.B. This was a serious door-knocking, swag-selling activist! But I see it all the time on Twitter. Most people are still operating under R=war hawk, D=dove and shockingly, shockingly do NOT see Hillary as the destroyer of nations that she is.

He can make up the most ground here, and it accomplishes reassuring people that he is the staid one, and she cultishly messianic.

Don't go past the sale, though: most people don't care about war no matter what they say. The anti-war protesters in the aughts were correct, but they dropped their cause the moment Obama ascended the office. The movement was little more than a primal scream against a Republican leader.

One more comment about this Bernie activist that makes me smile every time I think of it, by the time I was done explaining Trump's foreign policy (strong build up, not world's police man, not antagonistic to Russia, etc.) she got nervous he was too much of a dove!

"Do not trust the Russians," then this old woman gave me a solemn, serious education. Nobody's fool.

I thought it was incredibly bizarre on day 3 that Biden comes out and gives a speech about how Trump doesn't care for American workers because he's a billionaire. Then he's followed by Bloomberg, who then goes on to brag that Trump isn't nearly as wealthy as he is.

Reuters saw that Trump was gaining too much, which in their poll was probably true, but they changed it so that people could no longer choose 'neither,' which then bumped Hillary up several points and Trump down several points.

Lots of polls rolling in that show a bump today. Although I don't think it is a DNC bump as it is damage from fighting with Khan.

Even though Khan was pure exploitation, Trump fell for a trap that angered a lot of veterans, which was one of his bread and butter bases. It reminded me a lot of the abortion controversy back in March: Trump talked about a topic that he did not know/care much about.

Trump recovered then and he will recover now. Paul Manafort needs to drill it into Donald's head that he needs to stick to the winning issues: trade, being tough on terror, exposing Clinton's corruption. The more he gets bogged down in these little skirmishes, the worse he comes off.

Where are the veterans -- who are not gay nurses shilling for Hillary -- who are up in arms over the Khan thing? I haven't seen or heard about it anywhere. It's only the GOPe and the media who are lashing out at him, not actual voters.

Clinton's "bump" is a 1-point narrowing of the gap. Not a bump. Her numbers were declining through most of the convention, so if you measure against the nadir during the Tues / Wed, it looks like a more substantial bump. But compared to where she was before the convention, she merely recovered from all the DNC Wikileaks stuff.